Katz & Barnett v. Gill

43 La. Ann. 1041
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided October 15, 1891·No. No. 311·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Breaux, J.

Plaintiffs’ claim in this case does not exceed $2000.

Unless the' transactions assailed by him are pure simulations, it is manifest that the appellate jurisdiction is tested by the amount of plaintiffs’ demand, and not by the value of the property involved in the contract sought to be annulled.

Our opinion, in the case of Chaffe vs. Gill, just read,'shows that the contract assailed was not a mere simulation.

[1042]*1042Ib follows that plaintiffs must seek appellate relief in another tribunal.

It is, therefore, ordered that the appeal herein be dismissed, without prejudice to plaintiffs’ right to appeal to the circuit court. Dismissed at appellants’ costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Katz & Barnett v. Gill, 43 La. Ann. 1041 (La. 1891).

43 La. Ann. 1041 (Katz & Barnett v. Gill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thrift Funds Canal, Inc. v. Foy
242 So. 2d 253 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1970)
First Nat. Bank of Ruston v. Jones
161 So. 54 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1935)
Day v. Helena Lumber Co.
76 So. 820 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1917)
Advance Thresher Co. v. Breaux
59 So. 117 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1912)
Courtney v. Rigmaiden
36 So. 704 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1904)
Cusachs v. Dugue
36 So. 960 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1903)